On 18th December, The Supreme Court in recent judgement in Saurav Yadav Vs. State of UP created it clear that reservation and benefit aren't mutually exclusive.
Articles 15(4) and 16(4) enable vertical reservation based on slotting the population in terms of SC, ST, OBC, and General Category. But there is another class of reservation called Horizontal Reservation which includes a reservation for women, differently-abled persons, freedom fighters, army veterans, etc.
In the Saurav Yadav case, the court reiterates its antecedently control read that candidates happiness to reserved classes like SCs, STs, and OBCs is appointed underneath open or general class, if they qualified on their own benefit, so they're not counted underneath the reserved class.
In different words, it rejected the unspoken assumption that the open class is ‘reserved’ for people who aren't entitled to reservations for SCs, STs and OBCs. in theory, reservation is an instrument for characteristic benefit in people from traditionally marginalized communities.
There was disagreement among high courts while applying this principle under horizontal reservations. When the Court is using the term merit, it is simply pointing out that certain selection criteria are being used. Such selection criteria are also within particular reserved categories: which is also a function of selection criteria, in this case, marks.
In this manner, people who advocate reservation don't totally quit on the structure criteria of choice they simply apply it differentially.
This article has been written by Riya Rajayyan for The Paradigm
See you next time...